United States v. Blanca Avila-Resendiz , 694 F. App'x 550 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50201
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02941-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BLANCA L. AVILA-RESENDIZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Blanca L. Avila-Resendiz appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 84-month concurrent sentences and 5-year concurrent terms of
supervised release imposed following her guilty-plea convictions for importation
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of methamphetamine and importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952
and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse.
Avila-Resendiz contends that the district court misinterpreted the amended
minor role Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, and relied on superseded precedent to
deny the minor role adjustment. To the contrary, the record reflects that the court
properly considered and applied all of the factors enumerated in the amended
commentary to the minor role Guideline. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C);
United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016). Moreover,
Avila-Resendiz has not shown that the district court relied on United States v.
Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2014), or our precedent more generally, in a
manner that is inconsistent with the amended minor role Guideline. See Quintero-
Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523 (because the factors listed in the amended Guideline are
non-exhaustive, the court “may also consider other reasons for granting or denying
a minor role reduction”). Therefore, the district court did not err in imposing the
custodial sentence.
Avila-Resendiz also contends that the district court plainly erred by
imposing a five-year term of supervised release. The district court erroneously
stated the statutory term for supervised release as “three [years] up to life.” See
U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 cmt. n.9 (if defendant is safety valve eligible, she is exempt from
2 16-50201
the statutory minimum term of supervised release). Accordingly, we reverse the
district court’s judgment and remand for resentencing as to the supervised release
term. See United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030-31 (9th Cir.
2011).
REVERSED.
3 16-50201